falsification - trying again - no slide rules please.

Zachriel wrote:
"don findlay" wrote in message

Again, though, ..the question is geological, in the belief that we have
to begin with the facts. If the facts bear on the theory, to the
extent that the theory is in question, then we cannot use the theory to
assess the validity of the facts. Fair statement?


Sorry. No. The mechanics of gravity and motion are well-tested and
well-known. You can't just ignore them when trying to reach conclusions
about the planet. Any conclusion you reach would have to be consistent with
these known physical laws.

Well, I'm afraid to me that's a bit like saying," If you think the
Earth is round, then you have to take into consideration that it is
flat, and any explanation you may have about roundness must include
this flatness"

Rising-Star8471 wrote:
don findlay wrote:

What if you took away the water, how much would the earth shrink?

We're doing more than removing the water, we are removing the ocean
floors (exposure/
emplacement of the mantle). But areally, yes, ..removing the water.


The total water supply of the world is 326 million cubic miles. Thats
alot of water. Could simply adding the oceans themselves, and then the
weight of this water "squish" earth causing cracks and floating
landmasses, and oozing mantle? While at the same time add a signifigant
amount of miles to earths diameter?

And if you removed the water, would the earth "dehydrate" and shrink?

I think I understand what you are trying to say. Your saying that the
Earth is expanding and are looking for ways to prove it by searching
out the flaws in your logic by getting people to think about how to
disprove it, but your not allowing the use of any gps or sattilite
technology, your only interested in the geologic past.

Yes, it's a conclusion drawn from the geology. It should be
falsifiable within the ambit of the geology. I'm aware I might be
biassed, since I can find nothing in the geology to contradict it, and
see global structure as supporting it, .which is why I'm asking for
others' views. If falsification is possible it shouldn't be that
difficult. Geology is not rocket science. Plate Tectonics is taught
in pre-school (sort of). It shouldn't be beyond somebody to come up
with some geological criteria that would knock on the head the
conclusion that the Earth has got bigger.


Still, its an interesting discussion.

But you'll note thus far nothing of the geological facts have been
discussed. Most seem just to be bent on rubbishing me rather than
addressing the question.


Star

Rising-Star8471 wrote:
Rising-Star8471 wrote:

Or is it more of a "IF" the world were expanding then "WHAT" would we
expect to see as a consequence? Am I close.......common, throw me a
bone here

Yes, ...if you like, it can be an 'if'. I think it's more than an
'if', but for the sake of the argument and 'if' will do. But there
are very solid reasons for it. That's the problem, and why I am now
looking to falsify it. It explains all the data of plate tectonics and
more besides and explains the things plate tectonics can't. I want to
test the depth of response.

Kermit wrote:
don findlay wrote:

One problem with creationism is that it to the extent it is
falsifiable, it has been falsified. ID has no theory at all.

Neither does Earth Expansion. It is a conclusion drawn from the
geological evidence. I'm asking how, within the ambit of geology, such
a conclusion could be falsified. If it can't, then we'll start
thinking in terms of 'theory', ..and try to falsify that too. Let's
not jump the gun here.


And
neither has been able to refute evolutionary science with facts.

So too: the evidence does not support an expanding Earth.

Without referring to the immaculate infallibility of the theory of
Plate Tectonics, can you say how (then we might be getting some place).


And there is much that refutes it. Some problems:
No conceivable mechanism.

Does this pertain to geological data? Or to theory?

No other planets are seen to be expanding.

We don't see the Earth expanding right now either (xxpm my time; how
about yours) but then I wouldn't expect expect it to be minute by
minute (geologically speaking)

No changes in the length of day or the orbit that we would expect.

I don't know so much about the lod, but I think the number of days in a
year has changed over geological time (consistent with slowing)

No geological data that is supported by this "hypothesis",

I posit it is all supportable, and deal with the major aspects on my
site.

and much
that is incompatible with it.

Like what?

There is no data that you idea supports
better than plate tectonics.

The form and distribution of Mountain belts, spreading ridges,
transform faults. Numerous other (site). The configuration and
distribution of all first order elements is supported.

I use scare quotes around the word
"hypothesis" because it's not an hypothesis unless it's comptible with
the known facts.

Would you call a conclusion a hypothesis? I'm not sure? It's
certainly a "conclusion tantamount to observation" and follows from
everything to do with the Earth being round and rotating (which aspects
are unnecessary and ignored in Plate Tectonics)

The more knowledge people have in physics or geology, the more they
seem to have specific arguments at hand refuting you.

I know, ...worrying, isn't it, ..("Experts") In the lines above
*you* have come with more geological argument (such as it is) (well,
...assertions) than the lot of them put together.

Peter Barber wrote:
don findlay wrote:

Experts. Indeed. (C'mon you lot : "We need a volunteeer" )
(Me, expert. You, volunteer)

I think one day in years to come, you will come across that comment
while perusing Usenet archives and blush at the arrogance of it.

Yes, ..I know, these emails are like that. There was absolutely no
personal thorns intended. II had a little vignette of being in the
army and the resident 'expert' calling on the troops, and making it
very clear who was expert and who was not, ..just in case there should
be any confusion. The Church is a bit like that too. And so is
science. No way do I put myself forward as an expert. It just ****es
me off how the troops automatically stand to attention whenever an
'expert' shows up, demanding to be saluted. That was all

Unless
you're being funny of course, but in that case surely the punchline
should have come by now?

It sure has. What a mob, ..eh?

don findlay wrote:
Zachriel wrote:
"don findlay" wrote in message

Again, though, ..the question is geological, in the belief that we have
to begin with the facts. If the facts bear on the theory, to the
extent that the theory is in question, then we cannot use the theory to
assess the validity of the facts. Fair statement?


Sorry. No. The mechanics of gravity and motion are well-tested and
well-known. You can't just ignore them when trying to reach conclusions
about the planet. Any conclusion you reach would have to be consistent with
these known physical laws.

Well, I'm afraid to me that's a bit like saying," If you think the
Earth is round, then you have to take into consideration that it is
flat, and any explanation you may have about roundness must include
this flatness"

No, it's more like saying "If you think the Earth is round, you must
take into consideration the motions of celestial objects as observed
from Earth." The existence and mechanics of gravity and motion are
understood and separate from any theory of plate tectonics or
terrestrial expansion. If you're going to make a valid argument for
terrestrial expansion, then it must mesh with what we already observe.

don findlay wrote:

Yes, but do you have an answer to the question? Can you think of
anything geological to falsify the conclusion that the Earth has
doubled in size since the Mesozoic

It does not make any difference. Atomic clocks and the red shift
indicate no such expansion. There is no mechanism for any significant
expansion. What is a few metres among friends?

If there was any expansion it has stopped.

Bob Kolker

_.-In talk.origins, don findlay wrote the following -._
1. The question was geological

You keep using that word. I do not think it means what you think it
means.

As for your whole thoery of the world that 'got bigger': it is you
who needs to prove that this has happend, you have not done this in a
manor that has caused others to change their mind. This is for one of
a few reasons:
1) you are wrong
2) you haven't yet provided enough evidance to support your claims

I am leaning toward the first.

--
=()==()==()==()==()- http://fauxascii.com
\ \ \ \ \ \ ASCII artist
:F_P:-O- -O- -O- -O- -O- -O- -O-
\ \ \ \ \ \ \ \ \

Rolf wrote:


In short, present the theory of Earth expansion, don't ask for refutation.
It is like ID: It makes no predictions, thus being unfalsifiable.

Neat, ..huh?



Rolf




snip continuation of rant

--
Bobby Bryant
Austin, Texas

don findlay wrote:
Sam Wormley wrote:
don findlay wrote:
Earth expansion and how to falsify it.

I say it's in the obvious category. The Earth has got bigger. Grown.
Which means the surface moves outwards from the centre, and that
crustal break-up and sideways movement of the fragments are a
consequence of adjustment to this outwards movement.

We can easily tell that this has happened from the difference in the
way the crust and the mantle have behaved, which leads axiomatically to
a conclusion that the Earth has got bigger - approximately doubled in
size since the Mesozoic.

Not so easy is telling how to falsify it. What geological acid test
could be used to FALSIFY Earth Expansion? ....how would you assess,
*GEOLOGICALLY*, if the Earth has got bigger? (Or not?) Really
substantially bigger; doubled in size in the last 10% or so of its
history.

This is not a question for homework. This is a serious attempt to
address how we understand global geology.

What would the first question be? Something to do with:-
The way that the crust has broken up?
The way that the crustal fragments have moved?
The way that the plates have grown/ shrunk/ moved/ been created/ been
destroyed?

Or maybe about mountain belts, stratigraphic sequence, ..et etc;
anything you like, but always the question must pertain to the geology
(rocks and things of the geological past - not slide rules and gps of
the present).


Atomic clocks would "speed up" if the earth were expanding. The Earth
has not expanded during the era of atomic time keeping.

Hi, Sam, .. Yes-But. two problems the-
1. The question was geological

Are geologists not allowed to use atomic clocks? Is there an approved
instrument list for every scientific discipline?